Political responses are pouring in following PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan's recent call for peace, echoing sentiments from various political leaders including the head of the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), Devlet Bahçeli. Bahçeli, noting the significance of Öcalan's message, stated, "Ne mutlu bizlere ki, sahte ayrımcılıkların, yapay anlaşmazlıkların, cepheleşme ve yanlış anlamaların milli hayatımızdan tamamıyla sökülüp atılacağı kutlu bir dönemin eşiğindeyiz!" (How fortunate we are to be on the verge of a blessed era where false discriminations, artificial disputes, divisions, and misunderstandings will be completely uprooted from our national life.)
This was part of Bahçeli's longer message shared on social media during the holy month of Ramadan, emphasizing unity and cooperation. His comments come amid renewed dialogues concerning the Kurdish peace process.
Bahçeli's remarks follow significant developments since his outreach to the Democracy and Progress Party (DEM) on October 1, indicating the beginning of what many hope to be a new chapter. The DEM Party has been pivotal, marking its first visit to Öcalan at Imrali Island on December 28, and since then has facilitated discussions among various party leaders like Numan Kurtulmuş and representatives from the MHP, Future Party, AK Party, Felicity Party, CHP, DEVA Party, and the New Welfare Party. All parties involved have shown their commitment to support the peace process, with calls for it to be transparent and conducted under the parliamentary roof.
Following the last of DEM's visits, during which they engaged with key figures from different political backgrounds, Öcalan made his historic call on February 27, urging the PKK and its members to lay down their arms. He acknowledged the importance of practical measures, stating, "Varlığı zorla sona erdirilmemiş her çağdaş cemiyet ve partinin gönüllü olarak yapacağı gibi devlet ve toplumla bütünleşme için kongrenizi toplayın ve karar alın; tüm gruplar silah bırakmalı ve PKK kendini feshetmelidir" (Every modern society and party whose existence has not been forcibly ended should gather their congress and make decisions to integrate with the state and society; all factions must lay down their arms and the PKK must dissolve itself). This plea for disarmament underlines the dire need for reconciliation between conflicting parties.
Bahçeli had previously signaled his openness to dialogue, having suggested earlier this year, "Şayet terörist başının tecridi kaldırılırsa gelsin TBMM'de DEM Parti grup toplantısında konuşsun!" (If the terrorist leader's isolation is lifted, let him come and speak at the DEM Party group meeting at the Grand National Assembly of Turkey!). His past comments represent the MHP's willingness to participate actively in peace discussions.
Adding to the discourse, Ali Babacan, the DEVA Party's leader, expressed his thoughts after conversing with Bahçeli, sharing his support for the call for disarmament. He conveyed his well wishes to Bahçeli following his heart surgery on February 4, 2025, emphasizing the gravity of the discussions at hand during their phone conversation. During this dialogue, they briefly reassured each other about the positive outlook on Öcalan's proposals to the conflicting sides.
Bahçeli has remained optimistic about the new political climate fostering cooperation. He has articulated this sentiment by stating, "Ramazan ayının manevi güzelliklerini, hidayet ve hikmet dolu mükafatlarını barış ve beraberlik sınırları dahilinde doyasıya yaşamayı, adeta kana kana içmeyi bilhassa temenni ediyorum." (I especially wish to experience thoroughly the virtuous beauties of Ramadan, abundant with enlightenment and wisdom within the limits of peace and unity). This underpins his fervent hope for achieving tangible results from the peace process.
The significance of Öcalan's call is far-reaching, as it posits serious questions about the nature of Turkish-Kurdish relations and the potential for long-lasting peace. Looking back, the history between Turks and Kurds is contentious and complicated, often marred by years of conflict. Öcalan himself noted the precedential 20th century violence and the political climates surrounding it, marking the necessity for transformation: "Kürt-Türk ilişkileri; 1000 yılı aşan tarihler boyunca Türkler ve Kürtler, varlıklarını sürdürmek ve hegemonik güçlere karşı ayakta kalmak için gönüllülük yönü ağır basan, hep bir ittifak içinde kalmayı zorunlu görmüşlerdir. (Kurdish-Turkish relations; throughout more than 1000 years, the Turks and Kurds, have deemed it necessary to remain within the bounds of volunteerism, hence forming an alliance to sustain their existence against hegemonic powers.)"
Understanding the nature of such historical ties is pivotal for fostering peace, which cries out for democratic approaches and political inclusivity. Political experts argue the path forward lies heavily on achieving democratic consensus about the Kurdish identity and their acknowledgment within the wider Turkish polity.
Indeed, this call for peace resonates with many across the political spectrum. The engagement of various political parties, alongside Öcalan's responsibility pledges, create a peculiar environment where conflict may finally yield to dialogue and diplomacy.
It remains to be seen, though, how effectively this new political climate and collaboration among parties will transition from dialogue to meaningful action. The coming months will be telling as these discussions progress and as the Turkish populace awaits substantial changes as part of this potential turning point.
What will this mean for the future of not just Turkish-Kurdish relations but for the very fabric of Turkish society? The answers to these questions will be closely monitored and the world will be watching as this significant chapter of history continues to evolve.